What bear goes there?

I’ve been silent for almost 5 months, and for that I apologize. Writing about wildlife and what I’ve learned in college and life has been a constant source of joy for me, and I’ve met some really cool people through my blog. I have a lot to share about what has been going on in my life. For now, please read this article concerning bears and wildlife rehabilitation and the handling of wild animals by the “lay-person”. If you have read any of my previous entries, you’ll know that I love the American black bear above all other wild animal species.

Alyssa: I actually dont like this article or story now that I’ve read it. People should NOT approach wildlife, should NOT pic up young (or otherwise) animals esp bears, should NOT put them on a leash. Let nature take it’s course. The SE is saturated with bears. The loss of one will not affect the population, however callous that sounds. That’s the biologist in me!

Friend Who Posted The Article Link: Ouch alyssa lol I get where you’re coming from but they’re just trying to do the right thing and save a life.

Myself and a set of black bear triplets at a den visit this past winter in the Finger Lakes. I accompanied the NYSDEC biologists and researchers to this den to collect various pieces of information. This information is used to manage the State’s black bear population. I am conflicted for sharing these types of pictures, as they give the wrong idea sometimes. This was a legitimate research day, and I was lucky to participate as a volunteer.

Alyssa: See “doing the right thing” in this case is anthropomorphizing a wild animal. A pet dog? Yes pick it up. A child human? Yes of course pick him or her up. But doing the right thing for wild animals and people/domestic pets is different. A wild animal should be left. The only situations that I agree with wildlife rehabilitation is the orphaning of young at a VERY young age…. IE: Mom hit by a car, and fawn is left standing there. A 5 month old bear CAN survive on it’s own. It’s no longer nursing and is very mobile. The other situation I agree with wildlife rehab is of an endangered or iconic species, such as the Bald Eagle. What this guy did, and what this article is doing, is not any favors for bears. People see this cute creature being held like a baby. I struggle with this myself, as someone who’s assisted with the handling of research bears, and I share pics of myself holding a 5 lb bear cub. Cute, amazing, wonderful… but we’re telling people its ok to handle wildlife. I’m sorry if this is coming off as crass, but it’s a reality that wildlife biologists and researchers deal with. That bear will be imprinted on humans, will seek out humans for food in the future, AND will likely need to be “removed” in the future for breaking into a car or camp. It’s only been told that people = food. A fed bear is a dead bear. It seems mean, but we’re talking about a wild animal whose species has evolved for 1000s of years, living off the land. People (usually) have the best intentions in the world for helping, but they are not doing the wild animal any favors.

Alyssa: Not to mention, that man handling that strong, young, scared animal without gloves or other protective clothing, and the bear isn’t restrained or otherwise. What if the reason she was so bold was because she had a communicable disease? Distemper, rabies, etc etc etc… I speak for the bears, not to get “Loraxy” on you, haha! But I care 1st for bears. If that means they’re left alone and a young one dies, it’s for the better of their species.

I encourage you to read the article and come to your own conclusions. Please share your thoughts below!

Alyssa Johnson

8 Responses

I disagree with your comments, find them poorly thought out, and your reasoning has several fatal flaws.

First, you begin with this statement: “People should NOT approach wildlife, should NOT pic up young (or otherwise) animals esp bears, should NOT put them on a leash. Let nature take it’s course. The SE is saturated with bears. The loss of one will not affect the population, however callous that sounds. That’s the biologist in me!.”
The problems here are as follows: To start, when you say “people”, what I think you really mean are lay people, or just certain people. You and your fellow researchers are obviously excluded from your generalized group of “people” that shouldn’t touch wildlife, as evidenced by your (public) picture of you holding 3 bear cubs wrapped like babies in blankets and the ongoing (necessary?) hands-on research being conducted under the guise of wildlife biology. The issue with this is that you have, in your own mind, made yourself and your colleagues superior to everyone else, but fail to address the very real fact that many “Wildlife Biologist” do not know or understand proper handling and restraint techniques and so you are no better qualified than any other person. Additionally, perhaps due to the amount of academic and experiential knowledge you and your colleagues have as biologists and researchers, you lack a fundamental empathy for the plight of these animals, as evidenced by your next point of “Let nature takes it course.” If we assume that the facts presented in the article are true, then “nature taking its course” in this particular case would be allowing this young animal to starve to death. The article states that the bear was on the riverbank for days, no adult in site, and was becoming thinner and thinner. Perhaps you didn’t learn this in one of your classes to become a venerated “biologist”, but Black Bears stay with their mothers for 1.5 years. During this time she teaches her young the skills necessary for survival. A 5 month old black bear, despite being “mobile” as you say, would not have the necessary skills to survive on her own in the wild, as clearly evidence by the fact that this bear was failing, and suffering from medical issues.
I’m not sure if you have ever thought about the actual practicalities of death by starvation, but I can assure you that it is a tremendously slow, torturous process, the pain of which can be and often is compounded by maggots slowly eating the animal alive, wounds becoming festering and painful infections, dehydration so severe the animals eyes recede into the back of its head, and so forth. I think perhaps you have an overly romantic or idealized version of what “nature taking its course” actually means. It would actually be more humane for the animal to be euthanized than left to suffer like this and if you cannot recognize that, then you should reevaluate your purpose in being a biologist and your concepts of empathy and morality. In light of this, your statement of “That’s the biologist in me!” is simply shallow and flippant. Wildlife biology as a field serves no purpose if you, and we as a society, don’t actually care about the animals you are studying, because in the end, if you don’t care about the animals and their survival, what’s the point of studying them in the first place? Your data simply goes into the reserve of human knowledge to be filed away and forgotten, worthless – much like your opinion of this particular bear and her suffering. Additionally, if this bear was orphaned because its mother was hit by a car or gunned down or electrocuted or trapped, that is NOT nature taking its course – that would be the very opposite of nature taking its course, if we are to assume by your logic that nature taking its course excludes human intervention or interaction.
Additionally, your anecdotal statement, that the “SE is saturated with bears,” cannot actually be evaluated for “rightness “or “wrongness” as it is simply conjecture, and alone fails to accurately represent the population density versus capacity for that region. The problem with statements like this is that they are nothing more than fluff, designed to rile emotions without you having to do the work and present actual facts. Moreover, these statements lend themselves more toward personal opinion and not fact, for example, if you see 1 bear 5 times, you might think you have an “overabundance” or “overpopulation” of bears, when in fact you only have 1 bear. Additionally, as human development surges, the concept of “overpopulation” becomes evermore constricting, as acceptable population numbers become lower and lower to make room for more Walmarts and housing developments. This is important to keep in mind because it will define whether you are simply a worker doing a job, or someone who actually cares about the environment and the animals you study, as well as what kind of person you are and will be. As a biologist, you should be more sensitive and professional in your presentation of these issues, as your credibility can mean life or death for thousands of animals. Policy makers rely on your work to make decisions regarding hunting quotas or limits, season times and lengths, legal means of take, areas open to hunting, land use and development, the establishment of national parks and refuges, and so on.
You also state that wild animals should NOT be put on a leash,” and while I generally agree with that statement because I understand the premise of your statement to be that wild animals should not be treated as pets, which is true, in this particular case the purpose was to keep the animal from falling out of the boat and drowning – this was a limited use of the leash and the bear was (apparently) not then paraded around like a pet for pictures. One issue I have with your statement however is that you leave no room for any exceptions to this rule for the general public or those pesky “people” we discussed above, but you yourself have no problem wrapping baby bears up in blankets like little human babies so you can pose for pictures with them. If you don’t already know, that is a clear double standard that discredits your opinion as a “biologist.” Moreover, you can pose with them because they are SO cute, but when one is starving on a riverbank, you have no problem turning your back on it. This is the same mentality that allows tourists to pose for pictures with cute little tiger cubs who go on to become neglected and mistreated fodder for canned hunts.
You also state that the loss of one bear will not affect the population as a whole and while you are right, this is also a fairly shallow view. There are always going to be a certain amount of “acceptable losses” in terms of overall animal populations, but if we only view each loss individually, then “one” animal will never effect the population until one day we realize that all those “ones” added up and now we are facing the challenge of ANOTHER endangered species. Most endangered species do not die off all at once, they are pecked away at, one by one until no more remain and it can be stated, with absolute certainty, that it is more efficient and less expensive to be proactive and prevent species from becoming endangered in the first place, than it is to save them from the brink of extinction. Your statement also fails to account for the other losses that would be experienced were these people to have just turned their backs on this animal and allowed it to die a slow, tortuous death, namely the loss of compassion, kindness, empathy and humanity. When life offers us the opportunity to exhibit any one of these traits, we have an obligation to do so, that’s what makes us human. To say that cruelty to some animals is OK, but not others – makes you a hypocrite and is the same mentality that allows millions of farm animals to be tortured, neglected and abused before ending up on the dinner table. There is no “right” time for compassion and kindness and I don’t think you would truly like to live in a world that didn’t have either. Additionally, your reasoning is flawed in that you make clear distinctions between pets, humans and wild animals and who is worth helping and who isn’t. Science has already decreed that animals feel and experience a range of emotions as nuanced as the spectrum of human emotion. This is not limited to “pets” and definitively includes wild animals. So, to say that helping a wild animal is mere anthropomorphization, and therefore shouldn’t be done, is simply wrong. Moreover, laws vary from state to state and many states allow traditionally wild animals such as skunks or bobcats to be kept as pets – presumably, wildlife biologists, such as yourself, had some input in the process that resulted in these laws. Should these animals be neglected because they are “wild”? Are their needs not important and should they be just left to rot in a cage? Given this, your statement allows no clear direction to anyone wishing to “do the right thing.”

Next, you obviously have contempt for the field of wildlife rehabilitation, which biases your viewpoints, leads you to incorrect conclusions, and also evidences a clear misunderstanding of the field as a whole. Your statement that “that bear will become imprinted on humans” is complete conjecture on your part, and evidences your lack of understanding of wildlife rehabilitation, and your lack of knowledge pertaining to the actual behavior and husbandry of wild animals. If you did read the article, you know that the bear was not raised by those pesky regular “people” that should never touch wild animals, but was brought to the Appalachian Bear Rescue, a facility housing both experienced rehabilitators and veterinarians. This bear’s medical needs will be addressed by a veterinarian, and her husbandry needs will be addressed by experienced rehabilitators whose UTMOST concern will be her ability to survive in the wild NOT as a habituated bear, but as a bear who will steer clear of humans and exhibit all of the skills necessary for survival on her own. While you might have it in your mind that all wildlife rehabilitators have a Snow White complex and that we all just want “play” with wild animals, this could not be further from the truth. It is a FUNDAMENTAL tenant of wildlife rehabilitation to ensure that the animals in care DO NOT imprint upon humans and that they function at nearly 100% before release. Most states do not allow wild animals in rehabilitation to be released if they cannot function appropriately in the wild. Where an animal cannot be released, laws require euthanasia, with few exceptions to this rule.
Moreover, in addition to your quippy “a fed bear is a dead bear” statement, you also state that we’re talking about wild animals that have adapted to living off the land. What your statement fails to account for is the shear destruction of that land that humans have caused in the last couple hundred years. Wild animals have not had time to adapt to all those changes WE have made. Where old growth forests that could house thousands of animals once stood, we now have housing developments and neighborhoods, highways and high-rises. Your statement is again shallow and shortsighted – animals can’t “live off the land” if there’s nothing on that land to live off of.

Finally, you go on to mention your concern for communicable disease: “Not to mention, that man handling that strong, young, scared animal without gloves or other protective clothing, and the bear isn’t restrained or otherwise. What if the reason she was so bold was because she had a communicable disease? Distemper, rabies, etc etc etc… I speak for the bears, not to get “Loraxy” on you, haha! But I care 1st for bears. If that means they’re left alone and a young one dies, it’s for the better of their species.” The first problem with this is that you are again simply conveying a fear without proper presentation of the facts. You are correct to be concerned about the potential for infectious disease, but your presentation here is again shallow, and you are clearly uneducated about these diseases. Generalized fear does not move us forward as a society and your furthering this kind of generalized, unsupported fear without doing the work and gathering the actual facts before public dissemination is highly unprofessional. However, rest assured, this animal was evaluated by at least one veterinarian, a professional more equipped than you to make this kind of assessment. You can also rest assured that should this animal present with any communicable disease that might threaten human or population health, it will be dealt with appropriately and professionally by the veterinarians and rehabilitators charged with its care.

In conclusion, based on your overall opinion presented in this article, I think it can be safely concluded that, you only “care about the bears” when its convenient and you can pose for a cute picture but don’t actually have to get involved in the nitty-gritty reality of their lives as they struggle to adapt to a world we humans are changing at an ever advancing pace. Your opinion is a canned opinion held by many professional “wildlife biologists” who have never taken the time to actually and independently think about the purpose of the work they are doing, the real lives of the animals being handled and studied (or the effect your “research” has on the animals, i.e. capture myopathy). As a Wildlife Biologist, a lawyer, and professional wildlife rehabilitator, I think I can safely say that Wildlife Biology and Wildlife Rehabilitation are not diametrically opposed, but it is this kind of thinking that stands in the way of further progress. Additionally, you may want to reevaluate your concepts of compassion, humanity and empathy and really ask yourself whether leaving an animal to suffer and die is the kind of person you really want to be and whether being a “biologist” is really a good enough excuse to be a person of poor character.

I could go on, as the issues presented by your article are complex, but I won’t. In answer to your original question, YES, what that rafter did was the right thing to do for that bear, for himself, his community and for the bear population as a whole.

You have made some very good arguments, Arianna, some of which make me reevaluate my own perspectives as a budding Aquatic Ecologist.

However, I find your response to be overly critical of Alyssa. Perhaps the words and phrases she chose to use while writing this post were not the most ideal and yes, maybe she left out some critical details (i.e. the baby bears she is pictured with are wrapped in fleece bags to keep them warm while their mom is being worked with as January in NY can be quite cold, and also to protect the handler, many are inexperienced, from sharp claws). I feel that you publicly attacking her character as a person and as a young biologist based on a single blog post is rude. Aren’t more experienced professionals such as yourself supposed to be mentors of the next generation? I understand that your initial reaction to this post was one of irritation, anger, frustration, etc., but why would you present your case in such a belittling way? Do you remember what your first few years in the field were like? Do you think that every paper and article you wrote were 100% accurate and error free? Do you think that deeming someone incompetent is constructive criticism? So, while I do agree with much of what you shared, where is your empathy and compassion?

Well — maybe — they should have called the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency first — before picking up the bear? See what the wildlife agency had to say — which reminds me of a story (link below) that supports your point of view…which I think that wildlife management and wildlife rescue are not the same thing.

I completely disagree with you. That cub was starving, had been seen for several days in a row, and could have drown on that class iii- iv river. That bear cub will not be imprinted. It is now at Appalachian Bear Rescue, a very competent facility. You seem to have the view that humans are more important than animals, and your bragging about your degree or profession proves your ignorance. You, to me, seem to be a holier-than-thou narcissist.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.

Discovering wildlife Search

Keyword search across all the entries in this blog.

Subscribe to blog via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.